Home Contact Us  
   

US & South Asia - Articles

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
#4113, 10 September 2013
 
End of American Hegemony: Iran, North Korea and now, Syria
D Suba Chandran
Director, IPCS
Email: subachandran@ipcs.org
 

The Obama administration, after failing in Iraq and later in Afghanistan, today is itching to carry out military strikes against Syria. In the contemporary world, especially during the last two decades, the American foreign policy has been met with a series of failures, starting from Iran and North Korea. Is this the end of American hegemony? If it is indeed, what does this mean for global stability and international order? Who is likely to, perhaps more importantly, who should fill the void, which is being created with the American decline?

First, a short note on the ongoing debate on the current crisis in Syria. There are adequate reports to prove that the chemical weapons have been indeed used in Syria against the population. The argument – that Syria has not violated any international norms by using chemical weapons, or has not threatened to use against another country, in this case the US, may have a legal position, but is against any moral and political norms, that have been widely accepted by the international community and the institutions including the United Nations and the International Court of Justice.
Another set of arguments, pinning the outcome to the formal report of UN team of inspectors whether Syria has in fact used chemical weapons or not, is an escapist strategy or worse, not willing to call a spade a spade. What if there is an undisputable proof of the use of chemical weapons, or any other weapons of mass destruction by a State against its own people? Should the international community hide behind legal arguments and do nothing about a State killing its own people?

The primary focus of this commentary is not about Syria – whether there is a case for the US to pursue military strikes unilaterally or through the UN. Rather, it is about the declining power of an international hegemon, and its fallouts on the global order.
Undoubtedly, after the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of Cold War, the US has become the sole super power and an international hegemon since the 1990s. No country has wielded the military superiority in the history of world, which the US has now. Not only the US has been sole super power, but also has been investing in military technology and has been leading the race. The difference is almost like Usain Bolt, running a 100 meters dash with few school children! The US is much ahead, and is continuing to increase the gap. Look at the nuclear weapons, ICBMs, aircraft carriers and now the precision personified drones. Clearly, the US is a generation ahead of other States that could be even considered as a potential contender, including China.
Besides the military superiority, the US also has substantial political clout at the international level. It has been successful in bulldozing other institutions – both the UN and the NATO to pursue its strategy. Though many within the NATO would prefer an independent strategy, they have not succeeded in going alone so far, in taking any major international decisions.

But has the US succeeded today in converting this military and political superiority in the last two decades to achieve the desired results? Is that not what a hegemon is supposed to do – converting its political and military superiority to coerce an outcome, irrespective of the resistance? The American record in this regard in the recent decades has been far from even satisfactory. Consider the following cases – Iran, North Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since the 1980s, the US has used all possible strategies to make a regime change in Iran. The economic sanctions and the UN resolutions have not been sufficient enough to cause any damage in Iran, leading to the American objective of a regime change in Tehran. Iran today is continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons and there is a strong pressure on the US to engage Teheran rather than isolating it. There is no indication, that the new President of Iran is likely to make any decisive U-turn in his country’s objective to build nuclear weapons.

North Korea perhaps is the biggest failure in terms of any decisive American foreign policy. Thanks to the presence of nuclear weapons, the US today is afraid of opening any military front vis-a-vis Pyongyang. Rather, the US is expecting China to handle the issue and keep North Korean military interests and pursuits within an acceptable framework. However, North Korea is unlikely to de-nuclearize.

More than Iran and North Korea, perhaps Iraq and Afghanistan should be considered as the biggest foreign policy failures for the US. While the American Presidents from George Bush, the senior to Obama today did not want to militarily interfere in North Korea and Iran, cutting cross the party lines in the US, there has been an approval for the American strategies towards Iraq and Afghanistan. But, what has been the American score card in these two countries, where there were no nuclear weapons, or any weapons of substantial military significance? Are Iraq and Afghanistan any better today, than before the American invasions? The answer should be an emphatic no.
Why then is Obama is itching to strike Syria? Why then there is so much of rubbish being produced in the American media that something needs to be done to avoid future Syrias? Perhaps, Obama sees Syria as “doable” vis-a-vis North Korea and Iran. In military terms, Syria stands no chance against the US; and that shows the decline of American military strength – to target a weak opponent and keep away from States such as North Korea. Such a selective target will only increase the resolve of States like Iran to possess nuclear weapons.

The era of American hegemony is on the decline. But the bigger question is, what next? Will an American decline help the evolving international order? Despite all the criticisms, the US is a great democratic society and many within believe in shared values. The “American dream” within is worth emulating in every country, in terms of ideals, aspirations and delivery institutions. China, the distant contender is no way closer to any domestic emulation in terms of an internal model and ideal.
It is in this context – a declining hegemon with no contender, there should be a sincere push to increase the faith in multilateral institutions and global norms. In fact, the US has to lead this initiative, in terms of building international norms and institutions acceptable to every one; that would be the greatest American contribution to a “global dream”. Will the US realizes its relative decline, yet the potential to shape an international structure, and perhaps make the greatest American contribution to international history?

By arrangement with Rising Kashmir

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
IPCS Columnists
Af-Pak Diary
D Suba Chandran
Resetting Kabul-Islamabad Relations: Three Key Issues
Can Pakistan Reset its Relations with Afghanistan?
The New Afghanistan: Four Major Challenges for President Ghani
Big Picture
Prof Varun Sahni
Understanding Democracy and Diversity in J&K
When Xi Met Modi: Juxtaposing China and India
Pakistan?s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: The Inevitability of Instability

Dateline Colombo

Asanga Abeyagoonasekera.
Sri Lanka: Moving Towards a Higher Collective Outcome
The Importance of Electing the Best to our Nation's Parliament
Sri Lanka: Toward a Diaspora Re-Engagement Plan
Dateline Islamabad
Salma Malik
Pakistan's Hurt Locker: What Next?
IPCS Forecast: Pakistan in 2015
India-Pakistan Relations in 2015: Through a Looking Glass
 
Dhaka Discourse
Prof Delwar Hossain
IPCS Forecast: Bangladesh in 2015
18th SAARC Summit: A Perspective from Bangladesh
Bangladesh in Global Forums: Diplomacy vs. Domestic Politics
Eagle Eye
Prof Chintamani Mahapatra
India-US: Significance of the Second Modi-Obama Meet
Has President Obama Turned Lame Duck?
Modi-Obama Summit: Criticism for Criticism?s Sake?

East Asia Compass
Dr Sandip Mishra
India-Japan-US Trilateral: India?s Policy for the Indo-Pacific
China-South Korea Ties: Implications for the US Pivot to Asia
Many ?Pivots to Asia?: What Does It Mean For Regional Stability?
Himalayan Frontier
Pramod Jaiswal
Nepal?s New Constitution: Instrument towards Peace or Catalyst to Conflict?
IPCS Forecast: Nepal in 2015
Constitution-making: Will Nepal Miss its Second Deadline?

Indo-Pacific
Prof Shankari Sundararaman
IPCS Forecast: Southeast Asia in 2015
Indonesia's Pacific Identity: What Jakarta Must Do in West Papua
Modi in Myanmar: From ?Look East? to ?Act East?
Indus-tan
Sushant Sareen
IPCS Forecast: Pakistan in 2015
Islamic State: Prospects in Pakistan
Pakistan: The Futility of Internationalising Kashmir

Looking East
Wasbir Hussain
Myanmar in New Delhi's Naga Riddle
China: ?Peaceful? Display of Military Might
Naga Peace Accord: Need to Reserve Euphoria
Maritime Matters
Vijay Sakhuja
Indian Ocean: Modi on a Maritime Pilgrimage
Indian Ocean: Exploring Maritime Domain Awareness
IPCS Forecast: The Indian Ocean in 2015

Nuke Street
Amb Sheelkant Sharma
US-Russia and Global Nuclear Security: Under a Frosty Spell?
India's Nuclear Capable Cruise Missile: The Nirbhay Test
India-Australia Nuclear Agreement: Bespeaking of a New Age
Red Affairs
Bibhu Prasad
Countering Left Wing Extremism: Failures within Successes
Return of the Native: CPI-Maoist in Kerala
The Rising Civilian Costs of the State-Vs-Extremists Conflict

Regional Economy
Amita Batra
India and the APEC
IPCS Forecast: South Asian Regional Integration
South Asia: Rupee Regionalisation and Intra-regional Trade Enhancement
South Asian Dialectic
PR Chari
Resuming the Indo-Pak Dialogue: Evolving a New Focus
Defence Management in India: An Agenda for Parrikar
Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: Implications for Asian Security

Spotlight West Asia
Amb Ranjit Gupta
Prime Minister Modi Finally Begins His Interaction with West Asia*
A Potential Indian Role in West Asia?
US-GCC Summit: More Hype than Substance
Strategic Space
Manpreet Sethi
India-Russia Nuclear Vision Statement: See that it Delivers
Global Nuclear Disarmament: The Humanitarian Consequences Route
Nasr: Dangers of Pakistan's Short Range Ballistic Missile

The Strategist
Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar
Jihadi Aggression and Nuclear Deterrence
The Blight of Ambiguity
Falun Gong: The Fear Within


OTHER REGULAR contributors
Gurmeet Kanwal
Harun ur Rashid
N Manoharan
Wasbir Hussain
Rana Banerji
N Manoharan

Ruhee Neog
Teshu Singh
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Roomana Hukil
Aparupa Bhattacherjee


 
Related Articles
D Suba Chandran,
"US and Pakistan after Kerry's Visit: Strategic Dialogue, Afghan Exit and a Nuclear Deal," 5 August 2013
D Suba Chandran,
"Talks with the Taliban: A Post Mortem," 28 July 2013

Browse by Publications

Commentaries 
Issue Briefs 
Special Reports 
Research Papers 
Seminar Reports 
Conference Reports 

Browse by Region/Countries

East Asia 
South Asia 
Southeast Asia 
US & South Asia 
China 
Myanmar 
Afghanistan 
Iran 
Pakistan 
India 
J&K  

Browse by Issues

India & the world  
Indo-Pak 
Military 
Terrorism 
Naxalite Violence 
Nuclear 
Suicide Terrorism 
Peace & Conflict Database 
Article by same Author
Will the Genie Want to Go Back?

The Fall of Rajapaksa: Why Democracies Fail Strongmen

Pakistan: The Military Courts

From Kashmir to Kabul

A Fractured Mandate: The Big Picture

And Now, They Are Coming For Our Children

Pak-Afghan Reset: Will the Taliban and al Qaeda follow?

Resetting Kabul-Islamabad Relations: Three Key Issues

Rise India, avoid regional pitfalls

Foreign Fighters of Pakistan: Why Pashtuns and Punjabis?

Can Pakistan Reset its Relations with Afghanistan?

The New Afghanistan: Four Major Challenges for President Ghani

Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping: Strong Leaders, Hard Issues

Pakistan: The Coup that didn’t take

Pakistan: Crouching Democrats, Hidden Khakis

Processes at the cost of peace?

Cost of Peace

Rise of Democratic Anarchists

Don’t steal the election now

Mullah Fazlullah: Challenges to the “Eliminate or Extradite” Approach

The Tahirul Qadri Affair

Dhaka as the Gateway to India’s Look East Policy

Modi, Sharif and the Cross-LoC Interactions

Region by Sub-regions

Civil-Military Equations in Pakistan: Que Sera Sera

ADD TO:
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
Facebook
 
Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
Year 2017
 January  February  March  April  May  June  July  August  September  October  November
 2016  2015  2014  2013  2012  2011  2010  2009
 2008  2007  2006  2005  2004  2003  2002  2001
 2000  1999  1998  1997
 
 

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

 
Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map
18, Link Road, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi 110014, INDIA.

Tel: 91-11-4100-1902    Email: officemail@ipcs.org

© Copyright 2017, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.